To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legosOpen lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Robotics / RCX / legOS / 2613
2612  |  2614
Subject: 
Re: bug in setting lnp host address?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos
Date: 
Wed, 5 Jun 2002 01:04:07 GMT
Viewed: 
4918 times
  
you'll probably hate me for being a nitpicker....

> I will parameterize this shift-value based on the CONF_LNP_HOSTMASK
> definition. Unless others object strenuously, I prefer to leave this
> interface using small valued numbers.


technically, you should not do any bitshifting at all.  There is always the
odd case when someone decides to be clever and have a hostmask with
interleaved zeros.  for example, a hostmask of 10101010 (0xAA), while
confusing, is still a valid hostmask.  If that host is listening on port
01010101, and someone sends a message addressed to 11111111, then that host
should pick it up and direct the message to the right port.  In this case,
bitshifting will never work.

This is also why I would like to see the addressing scheme finalized.  I
think it would make more sense to have a series of address-only bits
followed by a series of port-only bits.  Unless anybody wants to
significantly change LNP, I think it would make sense to settle on 4 bits
for the host and 4 for the port, as this is what most people are using right
now and is most likely adequate for the future, unless someone plans on
throwing a big legOS LNP festival...

cheers,
albert



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: bug in setting lnp host address?
 
And, you'll probably hate my reply... "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should." The very idea of a discontinuous array of bits representing a network address in something as rudimentary as LNP makes my hair stand on end. The idea (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: bug in setting lnp host address?
 
You are correct in stating that I shouldn't have restricted you to 16 nodes X 16 ports. I did however, want to normalize the host address in the visible API and user interfaces to be a small 0..N number instead of a random hex byte value, properly (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)

6 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR